I've read through that twitter conversation any number of times, but I'm only more confused. I could always switch back to OpenDNS, but not all that sure about that either.Īs you can see, lots of questions.
#What is the current version of firefox for macintosh driver#
If the solution to whatever is "just a bandaid" is to run dnscypt-proxy v2 or SimpleDNSCrypt, I need to learn more about that, and if it is possible to run either out of the Tomato (Asus) router-the Tomato version (Shibby USB) a few years old by now: MIPSR2-132 K26 Max/Linux kernel 2.6.22.19 with Broadcom Wireless Driver 5.12. Is it possible to see this conversation? Is it on github, twitter?
If it's only his "site," then what real-world impact would that necessarily have on the DNS resolver itself? Can you say what you were asking when you "reached out to them." And what is he referring to that is "just a bandaid?" If that refers to the current state of, how is that like a bandaid? Does this mean that running any of the are not "safe," whatever that would mean? He's saying that the site has been "neglected," but don't really know what the implications of that are for me.
But can you perhaps provide some context. GµårÐïåñ wrote:I reached out to them and straight from the horse's mouth:įirst, thanks for looking into this. The concern that Giorgio brings up in his comment in the group is the main reason why I have all recipe and experiments hard killed in my profiles, so if they ever decide to be stupid, as in the Mr Robot incident to name one, then I won't even have to get hit by it to begin with.
Any time you add an option that can be exploited by simply existing, then you open the userbase up, that's my gripe with it mostly. Also, keep in mind that often settings are changed behind the scene with embedded plugins which means that it will open up the potential that since it is there as an option it can be modified without interaction or changed to something else altogether by a rouge addon or whatnot. Of course if it becomes opt-in like Giorgio said and NEVER enabled by default (which such considerations change all the time with little notice to the users) then it should be safely ignored but we'll have to see how it looks in its final implementation. More than likely as Giorgio said, it will be controllable by a option/setting and certainly can be as such neutered using a `user.js` file but the fact is that the subset of the population who is going to know, do or modify this will be greatly less than the actual population who will go along with it. Barbaz wrote:Thanks GµårÐïåñ for the feedback, but I'm not clear whether you're saying this can't be reliably killed by user.js?
0 kommentar(er)
